One of Vinod Khosla’s first investments under Khosla Ventures has come out of stealth mode. Ottawa-based Group IV Semiconductor, which is supposed to be making some kind of announcement later this week, now has a Web site and is talking more openly about its technology. The company is developing solid-state lighting based on 100 per cent silicon that would ultimately replace the standard incandescent light bulb. It believes it can match the efficiency and run-life of LEDs but with better light quality and at lower cost. Here’s a link to the story I wrote up back in May.

My Clean Break podcast today is an interview with Terry Mocherniak, founder and CEO of Encelium Technologies, which is a supplier of building automation technology with a special emphasis on lighting. It’s incredible how much electricity is consumed by the lighting in big office and industrial buildings, and even more incredible how much of it is unnecessary. A company like Encelium will go into a building and rig rooms with sensors and lighting fixtures with switches and dimmers that allow them to be remotely controlled, either through a pre-established program or through a Web interface. Savings range from 50 per cent to 70 per cent on electricity bills, and the payback can be as little as three or four years depending on the installation. Looked at this way, you begin to realize that the province would get the biggest payback in terms of conservation if it dumped money into building retrofits, or at the very least provided interest-free loans to retrofit projects that could repay the loan within five years. It’s a no-brainer.

Anyway, the podcast is worth listening to if you’re interested.

Red Herring, in the wake of Sir Richard Branson’s $3 billion investment commitment to renewable fuels, asks in this story whether the huge amount of money now flowing into cleantech is creating a bubble that — like we saw with the dot-com bubble — is poised to burst. Is there too much money chasing too few deals, leading to investments in companies that don’t deserve it? Or, are concerns about climate change and peak oil and all the regulatory drivers that follow enough to justify the hype around cleantech?

These questions are timely given the poll I’ve had on this site for the past month. Of the 132 visitors to this blog who voted, 55 per cent said cleantech isn’t an investment bubble waiting to burst, compared to 18 per cent who said it was. The rest — 27 per cent — conceded there may be some areas of cleantech, such as solar or biofuels, that risk meltdown but feel that generally the cleantech sector is healthy and warrants the investment attention.

I think some kind of pullback is inevitable, and we’re already seeing a bit of it. But as the leaders in this sector begin to emerge and start showing profits those who made the right bets will win large. What’s encouraging is that money — large sums of money — are finally flowing to technologies that could truly help our planet/economy/society and in doing so create the next Microsofts and Ciscos of the world. Branson’s commitment may wow us because of its size, but what’s more important for me is that he’s just the latest high-profile business leader to throw his name and riches behind a cause and technologies that can benefit from his profile.

But let’s be absolutely clear: Branson’s $3 billion commitment is not a donation; it’s not charity. This is money he has set aside for investment that, presumably, is going to have a payback for him if he bets right. The Virgin Group, over time, may be faced with carbon taxes/caps that force it to look for emission-free energy alternatives, and like any company it can surely benefit by investing in technologies that make its operations more efficient. Fact is, I don’t want Branson giving a $3 billion handout, because you can’t battle something as massive as climate change on charity. It requires a change in the way we think, live and do business, and by pleding this massive investment Branson is deciding to influence change while making a sound business decision.

For another cleantech bubble perspective, check out this post on Cleantech Investing.

Here’s a good little local story about Camarillo, Calif.-based battery startup Zinc Matrix Power, which has developed a silver-zinc battery technology with twice the run time of lithium-ion and a much safer operation and environmental profile. The technology apparently makes its debut at the Intel Developers Forum in San Francisco next week (Sept. 26 to 28), and manufacturer testing will be conducted next year. The company is financially backed by Intel Corp. and the U.S. Army, which obviously sees a number of military applications.

Timing couldn’t be better for this little company. Given the recent safety (fire) concerns over lithium-ion batteries, and the fact that Sony batteries used in laptops from Dell, Apple and Toshiba have been recalled by the hundreds of thousands, the search is on for a battery technology that is not only safer than lithium-ion but offers better performance as well.

UPDATE: Here’s the official release from Zinc Matrix Power from the Intel conference.

The Globe and Mail reports today that, according to sources, the federal Conservative government has plans to imposed mandatory vehicle-emission limits on auto manufacturers by 2010, after a voluntary deal put in place by the former Liberal government expires. The story says the Harper government will use California’s stringent regulations as a model, which on the surface is a good thing.

This is an encouraging step in the right direction, but what we don’t know yet is whether these emission restrictions will truly mirror those in California. Also, 2010 is still a far way off — presumably this shouldn’t be a shock to the auto makers if they are *voluntarily* working toward standards set by the Liberals. Why not target the new standards for, say, 2008?

The Conservatives appear quite worried that their lack of action on the environmental file (and Kyoto) could prevent them from getting a majority in the next election — or risk them a win altogether. It will be interesting to see whether tough talk now will lead to tough policy this fall.